This is a very important presentation by Calum Douglas, who is a researcher for 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth'. Calum presents his investigation into the "official" flight data recorder information from American Airlines 'Flight 77' which hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, The data was obtained under
the US Freedom of Information Act. Play video from this link here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XrlUc0nDRvji/ Or play the video embedded below:
Video of his presentation was recorded 8th June 2007 at the Indian YMCA in London. Opening sequence by Calum Douglas, produced by flamesong.com - okulomedia.com
In
this analysis I explore conflicting official data evidence in relation to the alleged crash of "United Airlines "Flight 93" on 9/11. The evidence and data information I present in this analysis is
available in the public domain, and can be found from official sources. I will present my hypothesis which has been carefully deducted from the official evidence and data, along with circumstantial evidence, which I have gathered over the last 5 years of my independent analysis, which has led me to reach my conclusion.
The
‘official’ narrative of United Airlines ‘Flight 93’ (UAL 93)
United
Airlines ‘Flight 93’ (UAL 93) was a domestic scheduled passenger flight which
was allegedly hijacked by four Al-Qaeda terrorists. It allegedly crashed into a
field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, during an attempt by the passengers and
crew to regain control. The hijackers stormed the aircraft's cockpit 46 minutes
after take-off. The pilot and first officer took measures, by de-activating the
autopilot to hinder the hijackers. Ziad Jarrah, who had allegedly trained as a
pilot took control of the aircraft and diverted it back toward the east coast,
in the direction of Washington, D.C. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin
al-Shibh, considered principal instigators of the attacks had claimed that the
intended target was the Capitol Building. All 44 people on-board were killed,
including the four alleged hijackers. No one on the ground was injured. The
aircraft involved was a Boeing 757–222, registration number: N591UA was flying
United Airlines' daily scheduled morning flight from Newark International
Airport in New Jersey to San Francisco International Airport in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Discrepancies
with the official data evidence of UAL 93's take-off time
UAL
93 was delayed for 41 minutes on the runway in Newark, and finally took-off at
8:42 a.m. according to the official narrative. Yet in the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) database it reveals a discrepancy regarding the
"wheels-off time" of 8:28 a.m. (This is the moment when the plane lifts-off from
the runway). UAL 93's official wheels-off time is 8:42 a.m. Additionally, according to the Aircraft Communications Addressing and
Reporting System (ACARS) data, the wheels-off time is also 8:28 a.m. A similar
discrepancy was found in the case of United Airlines ‘Flight 175’, which had
the official wheels-off time of 8:14 a.m., but according to ACARS data, the
wheels-off time was at 8:23 a.m.
The
Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device
used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages
and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other
airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system.
ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone
networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the
world to route messages from ATC and the airline, to the aircraft depending on
its location and vice versa. https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Aircraft_Communications,_Addressing_and_ReportingSystem
To
understand further how the information was being generated, the wheels-off time
is triggered automatically by a mechanical sensor switcher when the airplane
loses contact with the ground during take-off. The data is then sent
automatically to the airline via the ACARS, and then the airline forwards the
data to the BTS on a regular basis. Ostensibly, no human intervention is
involved, thus no human failure is possible. An obvious question to ask is: how
can two pieces of "official" data of the take-off time be in conflict with the offical narrative? The
answer is they cannot. A question that has to be asked is, does this suggest or
indicate the possibility that a duplicate airplane took-off for this
discrepancy to happen? Evidence suggesting this possibility exists with the
account of Anthony F. Mazza with UAL 93 at Newark Airport on 9/11.
The
strange encounter that Anthony F. Mazza had with UAL 93 at Newark Airport on
9/11
On
the morning of 9/11, Anthony F. Mazza was working at Newark Airport as a
fuelling technician. One of the planes he provided with fuel was United
Airlines 'Flight 93'. In the cockpit of the plane he met a person who was
apparently neither Leroy Homer, Jr, the co-pilot, nor Jason Dahl, the pilot. On
Oct. 19, 2001, Anthony F. Mazza was interviewed by the FBI. Here's the FBI
report: Anthony
F. Mazza, Mazza worked as a fueler for Ogden Aviation Services at Newark
International Airport since 1973. Mazza fuelled United Airlines ‘Flight 93’ on
September 11, 2001 prior to its departure and crash in western Pennsylvania.
Mazza stated that everything seemed normal on the flight including the amount
of fuel that was pumped into Flight 93's tank. Mazza stated that prior to the
passengers boarding Flight 93, he had completed fuelling the plane and
proceeded to the cockpit to inform the co-pilot of the completed task. This has
been the standard operating procedure for United flights out of Newark for many
years. Mazza entered the cockpit where he handed the fuelling sheet to a young
Caucasian male, well groomed, brown hair and a white shirt, who was sitting in
the co-pilot's seat. The male responded to Mazza by saying thank you and taking
the paper from him. Mazza then departed Flight 93 prior to the passengers
boarding. Mazza stated that this was approximately 30 minutes prior to the
scheduled departure time. Mazza was interviewed by FAA employee John Patani
shortly after the crash in western Pennsylvania. Mazza stated that he reported
that there was nothing unusual on the day of the flight and that the plane had
been fuelled without incident. http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-was-male-in-flight-93s-co-pilot.html
On
Friday, October 12, 2001 Mazza saw a memorial for the crew of Flight 93 and saw
pictures of the co-pilot of Flight 93. The picture was the actual co-pilot of
Flight 93, who was Leroy Homer. Mazza stated that he was certain that the
co-pilot he spoke with was not Mr. Homer. http://www.911myths.com/images/e/ed/Team7_Box12_LeroyHomer.pdf
Who
was the "male" in the co-pilot's seat, if it wasn't neither Leroy
Homer nor Jason Dahl, the pilot? After seeing the memorial, Mazza
obviously took the initiative to contact the FBI. Had he identified Dahl -
whose picture he certainly saw, too - as the "male", he would not
have felt compelled to call the FBI? When interviewing Mazza, the FBI surely
asked him about this possibility and probably showed photos of Dahl again. In
any case, the absence of Dahl in the report makes it clear that he was not the
"male" either, and Dahl was 43 years old, not really a young man like
the "male" as described by Mazza.
Jere
Longman describes the United Airlines routine pre-flight procedures.
Before
the passengers board a plane, it has to be checked, of course. Basically the
captain looks after the cockpit instruments along a pre-flight checklist while
the first officer checks the plane outside (tires etc.).
The
fact that Mazza met neither Dahl nor Homer is even more compelling than the
presence of the "male". Again, is this further evidence indicating
that duplicate airplanes were involved on 9/11? As I mentioned earlier, it is
now known that according to United Airlines ACARS messages, UAL 93 took-off at
8:28 a.m. in stark contradiction to the "official" take-off time of
8:42 a.m.
Did
passengers board a duplicate UAL 93?
In
the official narrative the passengers of UAL 93 boarded the airplane from
boarding Gate 17 of Terminal A at Newark Liberty International Airport on 9/11,
however there appears to be an account of passengers boarding UAL 93 from the
tarmac. This eyewitness account comes from the New York Giants football player
Triton Clayton White.
"We
had played a Monday night game in Denver, and flew back home the next
morning," White said. "We landed in Newark, N.J., about 6:45 in the
morning. We usually get off the plane on the tarmac and board a bus to get to
our cars. I noticed another plane sitting next to ours because the people were
walking to the plane across the tarmac instead of through the jet way. Two
weeks later, as we’re taking another plane to a game, one of the stewardesses
informed us the plane that had been boarding next to us was Flight 93 that
crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. That was a very eerie feeling."
- Fayetteville Observer (01/31/06)
Is
it possible Triton Clayton White seen something he was not supposed to? Is it
possible the planners of 9/11 did not take into account the possibility of
charter flights off-loading on the same tarmac, where a second group of
passengers boarded a duplicate UAL 93? Did Triton Clayton White witness the
duplicate UAL 93 being boarded on the Tarmac at Newark Airport, which is
another separate boarding onto a different airplane, which could explain the
discrepancies in the official data between the BTS and ACARS data take-off
times? There is no reference in any official information or data of a second
boarding of passengers onto UAL 93.
Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) discrepancies
Earlier
on in this analysis I highlighted a discrepancy regarding UAL 93’s official
wheels-off time at 8:42 a.m. which is in conflict with the official ACARS data,
which indicates UAL 93’s wheels-off time was at 8:28 a.m. not 8:42 a.m. as
listed in the BTS data-base. UAL
93 (N591UA), definitely took off from Newark Airport (EWR), and the strongest
confirmation of this is in this document here: [doc: UASSI1-00000398] https://www.scribd.com/document/16345059/T7-B18-UAL-Jumpseat-Fdr-Entire-Contents-UA-175-and-UA-93-Emails-and-Documents-562
During
my analysis, which is based on the official FBI documents issued on 11/09/2001,
it raised the question, was United Airlines (UAL) and the FAA tracing two
different UAL 93 flights, because of further ACARS messages sent to UAL 93
after UAL 93 allegedly crashed at 10:03 a.m. UAL are in direct physical contact
with its own airplanes, and in the UAL ACARS logs it shows that till 10:10 a.m.
ACARS messages UAL dispatchers sent to UAL 93 (N591UA), were physically
received by the airplane, and also show that the Radio Ground Stations (RGS)
who were also in contact with UAL 93 (N591UA) were Toledo, Fort Wayne and
Champaign, IL.
The
official data indicates that UAL and FAA were tracking two different airplanes,
flying at different times and in different locations, and both were officially
identified as UAL 93? Central to my analysis is the evidence that there was a
UAL 93 still receiving ACARS transmissions as late as 10:10 a.m. seven
minutes after UAL 93 had “allegedly” crashed in Shanksville, PA according to
the official narrative crash time at 10:03 a.m. the messages activated the
printer in the aircraft and, in one case, even an audible signal. According to
messages #18 and #19, they were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the Radio
Ground Stations near Champaign, IL (CMI) as designated in the line "AN
N591UA/GL CMI". Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19
also activated an audible signal in the aircraft. http://www.911myths.com/images/1/1c/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf
These
were apparently the last messages received by UAL 93. Here's what happened to
the later messages:
Messages
#20 to #24 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD. However, all of the messages
were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them. These references
also identify that an ACARS message had been received by its sender, either
ground communications or the airplane. In the final moments, at 10:12 a.m. EST,
of UAL 93's flight, ACARS messages were being sent from ground communications
but were not being received. This was causing the ACARS messages to be
rejected. Knerr advised that UAL 93's low altitude may have caused this dilemma
or the fact that UAL 93 had already crashed at the time messages were sent. The
last message to UAL 93 which has two time stamps is #707, sent at 10:10 a.m.
and affirmed at 10:11 a.m. [FD-302 of Michael J. Winter 28-01-2002, Pg 3, PDF].
Knerr
has carefully chosen 10:12 a.m. as the point when UAL 93 ceased to receive
messages. Not 10:10 a.m. or 10:11 a.m. but 10:12 a.m. So all messages before -
like message #707 - have been received by UAL 93. Did Knerr make a mistake? Knerr
was also sitting there with two FBI agents and the print-out of the ACARS
messages, having the 10:10 a.m. and the 10:11 a.m. were clearly before their
eyes. And what he says is in perfect accordance to Winter's statement: #707 in
the ACARS file corresponds to message #19 as described by Winter. All following
messages (#20 to 24) were not received by the aircraft and therefore rejected.
Below is what a rejected ACARS message looks like:
CHIAO
CHI68R
CHIAOUA
111420/ROB
CMD
AN
N591UA/GL DEC
-
QUCHIAOUA 2
DDLXCXA
***UA93
EWRSFO***
There’s
no content, on the second time stamp and no affirmation. Knerr's statement,
Winter's statement and the ACARS file are consistent. Are there any doubts that
N591UA received and acknowledged a message at 10:11 a.m. eight minutes after
the alleged crash at 10:03 a.m. in Shanksville, PA? This evidence proves beyond
any doubt UAL 93 was still airborne after and did not crash at 10:03 a.m.
UAL
93's transponder still on after the alleged crash
A
transponder is a device that sends a plane’s identifying information, speed,
and altitude to controllers’ radar screens. UAL 93’s transponder, which was
switched off after UAL 93 was hijacked, is turned back on just before the
plane crashes, thereby revealing the plane’s altitude to air traffic
controllers at the FAA’s Cleveland Center. https://www.scribd.com/document/14094225/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-93-Fdr-Entire-Contents
UAL 93’s transponder is reactivated at 10:02 a.m. and 50 seconds, and then stays on
for “approximately 20 seconds, according to information from the flight data to
the FBI later today by Rick Kettell, the manager of the Cleveland Center”.
After the transponder is turned back on, Flight 93’s radar track is observed by
Cleveland Center controllers Linda Justice and Stacey Taylor. The information
from the transponder shows them that UAL 93 is at an altitude of 8,200 ft. https://www.scribd.com/document/14094225/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-93-Fdr-Entire-Contents
The
9/11 Commission gives an exact time of 11 seconds after 10:03 a.m. that UAL 93
crashed. It will claim this "time is supported by evidence from the
staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB (National Transportation
Safety Board) analysis, and infrared satellite data". It does note
that "the precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute."
A
dispute relating to seismic recordings shows a disturbance at 10:06 a.m. and
not 10:03 a.m. which the 9/11 Commission claimed the airplane crashed. Again,
the official seismic evidence reveals a discrepancy in the official timeline narrative.
The seismic data was another piece of evidence which was inconvenient for the
9/11 Commission because of UAL 93's transponder still being recognised by Air
Traffic Control (ATC) as airborne after the alleged crash time of 10:03 a.m.
This has been explained due to 'Coast Mode' tracking, however, ATC did not
recognise any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Furthermore, confirmation that this
was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognised UAL 93
reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if
UAL 93 was squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting
capability. It would have been impossible for ATC to have observed UAL 93's
transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the
crash site if UAL 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville, PA as the 9/11
Commission concluded.
Here's
the account of Mark Barnick, who was a supervisor at Cleveland Center. He
refers to 9:41 a.m. after UAL 93 had completed its U-Turn over Cleveland and
switched off the transponder for the first time:
UAL 93's transponder was then lost or shut off and the radar tag went into coast.
Other aircraft in the area verified that they had visual contact with UAL 93
and that it was still flying southeast bound. In order to follow the aircraft,
John Werth started a new flight following tag on UAL93's primary radar target.
No altitude information was available and all other controllers were advised to
keep all aircraft well away from the target of UAL 93. However,
according to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, UAL
93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03 a.m. The following transcript
excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is a
conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East,
Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is
as follows in real time:
1405
(10:05 a.m.)
ntmo-e:
ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty
two hundred feet
doug:
now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred
ntmo-e:
southeast bound still
doug:
eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him
ntmo-e:
correct
doug:
ok buddy
14:06
(10:06 a.m.)
ntmo-e:
ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
UAL
93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 a.m. two minutes after the
"official" crash time, and the transponder indicated an altitude of
8200 ft. It was also heading southeast. One minute later, at 10:06 a.m. radar
contact with UAL 93 was lost, at the position 39 51 North, 78 46 West. This
point is 15 miles southeast of the "official" crash site in
Shanksville, PA.
This
proves UAL 93 was still airborne after the crash because of the latitude and
longitude positions reported by ATC (3951N - 7846W) where they reported UAL
93’s last known radar position. It is unclear if the position is reported as
Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in
Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the official UAL
93 crash site. So at 10:05 a.m. 2 minutes after the official crash time (10:03
a.m.) the NTSB report says UAL 93 had crashed in Shanksville, yet they had UAL
93 on radar which is absolute proof UAL 93's transponder was still
operational because ATC were still receiving altitude information at 10:05 a.m.
Air
Traffic Control's last known coordinate of UAL 93
At
14:10 UTC (10:10 EST) in the official ATC recordings, we hear two controllers
discussing the last known coordinates for UAL 93, where the controller gave UAL
93’s last known positioning location as 3951 (North) 07846 (West). Taken
from the “official” ATC transcript. See below:
14:10 (10:10 a.m.)
ntmo-e:I
don't know if he's landed ok; the last position of united I'm going to give
some coordinatesunited ninety three
doug:yes
ntmo-e:three
nine five one north zero seven eight four six west
doug:zero
seven eight four six
ntmo-e:west
doug:west
doug:all
right
ntmo-e:you
got the thirty nine fifty one north
doug:
ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west
ntmo-e:that's
the last known position of united ninety three
Astonishingly,
thelast known coordinates (3951N 07846W) given by the ATC locates
UAL 93, 15 miles past the crash site proving that UAL 93 was still
airborne after the alleged crash at 10:03 a.m. It was also reported at 14:00
UTC (10:00 EST) which was captured in the Air Traffic Control (ATC) recordings
and transcripts that UAL 93 was spotted by a VFR which reported that UAL 93 was
travelling at 8,000 feet and 11 miles south of Indian Head, PA, which is just
north of Cumberland, Maryland. Based on the ATC evidence, UAL 93 is now in two
different locations?
Evidence
UAL 93 was in two different locations after the alleged crash?
Strangely, the ACARS messages which indicate UAL 93 was near Champaign, IL after the
alleged crash in Shanksville is no where near to UAL 93’s last known coordinate, which was 15 miles
past the official crash site. Based on this official evidence and data
conflict, FAA and United Airlines had to be tracking two different airplanes
which were in two completely different locations.
No Emergency Locator Transmitters
(ELT) when UAL 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville
The
Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) are emergency transmitters that are
carried aboard most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. In the event of an
aircraft accident, these devices are designed to transmit a distress signal on
121.5 and 243.0 MHz frequencies. ELTs are mounted aft in the airplane, and
designed to be triggered upon impact or may be manually activated using the
remote switch and control panel indicator in the cockpit. Activation of the ELT
triggers an audio alert, and 406-MHz ELTs transmit GPS position for search and
rescue. [Emergency Locator Transmitters – AOPA].
There
was no apparent ELT signal picked up in the area where UAL 93 allegedly crashed.
Major Allan Knox, who works at the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, which
is the contact for credible ELT signals, will tell the 9/11 Commission that he:
“does not recall an ELT detection being
brought to his attention”. This indicates that UAL 93 did not crash in
Shanksville, PA, thus supporting the Air Traffic Control data evidence that UAL
93 continued on heading towards Washington.
UAL
93's new flight plan to Reagan National Airport, Washington
UAL
93 deviated off course, after completing its U-Turn over Cleveland, Ohio and
switched-off the transponder for the first time at approximately 9:40 a.m. UAL
93 filed two additional new flight plans. The first one was Hagerstown (HGR)
and a second one at 9:55 a.m. was to Regan National Airport (DCA).
Additionally,
in support of this evidence, Linda Justice can be heard during ATC
communication recordings saying “UAL 93 is flashing over Hagerstown”. https://youtu.be/qbyGV_yhPPI
Hagerstown
locates UAL 93 approximately 69 miles past the official crash
site. Another piece of official evidence is in the ATC communication
transcripts locating UAL 93’s position west of Dulles International Airport,
Washington. See transcript page 30 below:
A
noticeable gap in primary radar happens right when UAL 93 switches from San
Francisco International Airport (SFO) to Reagan National Airport (DCA) between
9:52:03 a.m. and 9:53:21 a.m. No other flight had this issue on 9/11. A new
arrival time at DCA (Reagan National Airport, Washington with an estimated time
of arrival at 10:28 a.m. Who was updating this flight? Who authorised these
flight plan changes? The Primary Radar stopped pinging UAL 93, so how could ATC
update UAL93 flight plan (which is reflected on Flight Explorer) if every
single data point has been eliminated?It was reported in the news
media that the hijackers filed the new flight plan.
MSNBC News Dateline: reported that the hijacker’s filed the new flight plan
from on-board the airplane, with its new destination Reagan National Airport. https://youtu.be/BnfnJSaDQ3E
There
has been a concerted effort on behalf of the authorities to conceal this fact,
by saying “this was not result of communication with the pilot” See
below:
Yet
there’s a major contradiction in the Staff Report published 26th
August 2004, which references its source as the NTSB report, Flight 93 flight
data recorder. It states: The pilot
hijacker, presumably Jarrah dialled into the flight computer the navigational
code for Regan National Airport in order to fly the aircraft toward Washington
DC. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/9-11/staff-report-sept2005.pdf
See screen-shot below:
Additional
information comes from 'Flight Explorer' which supports that UAL 93 was heading
to Reagan National Airport, Washington, for a 10:28 a.m. landing. Firstly, some
additional background information about Flight Explore itself below.
Flight
Explorer- They correspond to real airliners with real people moving in
real time. Now, travellers, pilots, airline dispatchers and others can go to a
laptop or desktop computer and tell where an airliner is within seconds through
real-time tracking. This service, called Flight Explorer, differs from the
tracking that on-line travel services and airlines provide. Those tell you
where a flight should be, based on the timetable, or, when they do provide
tracking, update their information less frequently. Ask any flier, and they'll
tell you that timetables and schedules are, at best, a polite fiction. "It's
the reality that counts," says Berry Gamblin of Dimensions International,
an Alexandria, Va., firm that designed Flight Explorer (http://www.flightexplorer.com) and licenses the
software to companies. The company uses Federal Aviation Administration air
traffic control reports that are updated as frequently as every 10 seconds.
Other services available on the Internet update about every 3 minutes. FAA
flight data is collected from the nation's 20 major regional air route traffic
centers. [USA Today By David Field 06/08/99] Source: http://www.webcitation.org/6Vpc9jhqr
The Flight Explorer flight-paths were used by 11 news agencies on
9/11, and the FAA themselves regularly used Flight Explorer flightpath
recordings until 1999, at which point they began recording them internally. The
Flight Explorer flightpaths include all deviations from the planned flightpath,
confirming they are position based rather than predictive. The Flight Explorer
flightpaths produced by Flight Explorer themselves used their internal data,
negating all client refresh timing updates, and so incorporate all FAA supplied
positional data. Flight Explorer received regular requests from the FAA
themselves for flightpath traces, confirming the accuracy and validity of their
data. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190129055833/http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/2-2-1
More
additional evidence shows that UAL 93 did receive a new flight plan on 9/11,
reported by both a male flight attendant and also a live news report at 5:00 p.m.
by CNN were using Flight Explorer to review the hijackings reported the new
flight plan to Reagan National Airport. Source: https://youtu.be/w9jn-VcQqIc
There
can be no doubt that an airplane identifying itself as UAL 93 was heading
towards Reagan National Airport for an estimated time of arrival of 10:28 a.m.
Further supporting evidence comes from the Flight Aware screen-shots below
regarding UAL 93's landing at Reagan National Airport at 10:28 a.m. Source: https://youtu.be/6syNnhOSkAI
DCA is Reagan National Airport. See screen-shot below:
So
either UAL 93 was edited out of
the BTS, or UAL 93 was edited into this
XL document. Also, wherever this document came from, that organisation needs to
be contacted as to why it says UAL 93 landed at DCA on 9/11. Interestingly,
at 10:22 a.m. WCBC live news coverage reported (Michael Hershman – President of
international security and counter-terrorism) an unidentified airplane
approaching an airport in Northern Virginia, either Dulles Airport or Reagan
National Airport. This is around the precise time UAL 93 would have been coming
in to land at Reagan National Airport from its 10:28 a.m. arrival. Source (Play video from 1 min 47 secs): https://youtu.be/wquAi4gTXfs
(Credit to 'Conspiracy Cuber' for discovering this piece of video footage).
What
happened to the duplicate United Airlines 93?
The
official data evidence it indicates UAL 93 landed at Reagan National Airport at
10:28 a.m. However the official ACARS data evidence shows UAL 93 sill airborne
after the crash and near Champaign IL. To establish what possibly happened to
this duplicate UAL 93 airplane we must revisit the UAL 93 – Cleveland Hopkins
Airport mystery landing story.
On
the morning of 9/11 a Cincinnati television station ran a story saying 'Flight
93' landed at Cleveland International Airport instead of crashing in
Pennsylvania as claimed in the official government narrative. Reporters at WCPO
Channel 9 quoted then Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White as saying "a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency
landing due to a bomb threat, the airplane landing safely, moved to a secure
location and evacuated”.
The
early morning report went on to say United Airlines verified the plane as
Flight 93, but was also deeply concerned about another jetliner in the
vicinity, Flight 175, flying from Boston to Los Angeles. Also included in the news
report was a comment from United CEO, James Goodwin, who said, "The
thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these
flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been
involved. United Airlines is working with all the relevant authorities,
including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights."
Former
Mayor White, as well as United and WCPO comments were suspiciously removed from
the television's website in June 2004 in and around the time of the 9/11
Commission Hearings. With the evidence of these statements in the public
domain, the obvious question still remains: If Flight 175 had crashed into the
South Tower and Flight 93 was downed over Pennsylvania like the government
asserted, why was Mayor White saying both planes were in or in the vicinity of
Cleveland?
In
the 2nd Edition of the 'Loose Change' and 'In Plane Site'
documentary films, they both promoted the idea that UAL 93 landed at Cleveland
Hopkins Airport at 10:45 a.m. I had been sceptical about this disclosure and
promotion of this story for several years, because of the overwhelming official
evidence and data I had obtained indicating that UAL 93 landed at Reagan Nation
Airport at 10:28 a.m. which was in the opposite direction and location to
Cleveland Hopkins Airport. However after studying all the official evidence
data, and in particular the official ACARS data, both in relation to UAL 93's
take off time discrepancies with the BTS and also later ACARS messages which located UAL 93 near Champaign, IL which is in direct conflict with Air Traffic Control's
last known coordinates of UAL 93 (15 miles past the official crash site in
Shanksville, PA) as shown earlier in this analysis. I now feel the UAL 93
landing at Cleveland Hopkins at 10:45 a.m. to be relevant and a possibility to
provide a plausible hypothesis for the conflicting official evidence data to
offer an explanation to what happened to the duplicate UAL 93 airplane flying near Champaign,
IL.
The
plausible reason why UAL 93 was located near Champaign, IL was because UAL
93 flew near Champaign, IL before turning back around and heading back towards Cleveland
Hopkins Airport to make its landing at 10:45 a.m. If this is so then this would
explain the statement made by Mayor White and United Airlines, thus why the
story was published by WCPO on their website.
The
ACARS messages #16 to #19, together with the time when they were received establishes
a rough flight path for the duplicate UAL 93:
9:22
a.m. PIT (Pittsburgh)
9:32
a.m. CAK (Canton/Akron)
9:35
a.m. CLE (Cleveland)
9:46
a.m. TOL (Toledo)
9:51
a.m. FWY (Fort Wayne, IN)
10:10
a.m. CMI (Champaign, IL)
If
we study the ACARS messages sent to UAL 93 which were received by the airplane from the Radio
Ground Station (RGS) in Cleveland message #10 at 9:35 a.m. and the last two ACARS messages #18
and #19 sent from RGS in near Champaign, IL which were received at 10:10 a.m.
this shows a 35 minute time-line between the two ACARS messages in which UAL 93
would have travelled from Cleveland to near Champaign, IL. If we use the last
known received Champaign, IL ACARS message #19, (time of 10:10 a.m.) it equates to 35
minutes for UAL 93 to have flown back to Cleveland Airport to make its 10:45 a.m.
landing precisely.
To
support this hypothesis is the testimony of Air Traffic Controller Stacy Taylor
who recalled UAL 93 changing altitude from 35,000 ft to 41,000 ft, and flying
past Cleveland Center and then turning back around and heading straight for
Cleveland Center with a rapid descent. Source: https://youtu.be/RE08PCTf_nY
UAL 93 circling over Chicago?
In
the memorandums from the 9/11 Commission online release, on page 5 of this
document: http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00762.pdfit states: "Marr told Commission staff that his focus was on UAL 93, which was
circling over Chicago. Marr thought UAL 93 was waiting for word over what had
been happening across the country to begin its attack." Note: Marr is
not "connected" to ACARS, but speaks from radar data someone told
him.
ACARS messages get transmitted via VHF radio antennae on
the ground near the plane. For planes at cruising altitude, "near"
can be up to 200 miles away. The sender must include the ground station in the
message.After studying the ACARS Radio
Ground Stations (RGS) it becomes apparent some ACARS messages were run-by RGS’s
near Chicago, such as: Toledo, Fort Wayne and Champaign, IL.
Toledo
covers a 200 mile radius coverage which includes Fort Wayne
Chicago
covers a 200 mile radius coverage which includes Toledo, Fort Wayne and Champaign,
IL.
Champaign,
IL covers 200 mile radius coverage which also includes Fort Wayne and Chicago
The
VHF ACARS radio range fits perfectly with Marr’s account. The “circling over”
Chicago means that the airplane was near Chicago. But the data that Marr
mentions is not data from the ACARS, moreover information (incorrect or
correct) that comes from other sources: FAA or Radars and therefore does not
and could not refer to the RGS that manage the ACARS messages of the Airlines.Chicago must undoubtedly have its own RGS, but as we
learned from the words of Knerr and Winter (in the UAR UA 93 ACARS Case Study).
Mr.
Winter explains the Aircraft Communication and Reporting System (ACARS) uses radio
ground stations (RGS) at various locations throughout the United States for
communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink
operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received
from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch. Source:
http://www.911myths.com/images/1/1c/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf
Some research “debunkers” believe that the ACARS ground
station is usually determined from flight plans, not from live information
about the plane's actual location, but as Mr. Winter explains, this theory is incorrect.
Furthermore, UAL 93’s acknowledgement that it received the ACARS
messages (18 and 19) sent from the RGS in Champaign, IL is absolute proof
that UAL 93 was near Champaign, IL.
CNBC
News Reported UAL 93 Originated in Chicago and headed to Cleveland
CNBC reported information from WPIX at 11:10 a.m. that “the
plane that crashed in Pennsylvania originated in Chicago, it was heading to
Cleveland and there was 90 people onboard. https://youtu.be/IdPJ8QSyZuM
Does the CNBC news report corroborate further support for
Marr’s account regarding UAL 93 “circling
over” Chicago. Does this provide proof that UAL 93 was indeed heading back
to Cleveland to make the 10:45 a.m. landing? Although this report states UAL 93
originated in Chicago, and was heading to Cleveland, the evidence is clear that
both UAL 93’s took off from Newark International Airport, not Chicago. Was this
a mistake in the reporting because UAL 93 was near to Chicago as suggested by
Marr? Was this misinterpreted that UAL 93 originated in Chicago because UAL 93 was flying
to Cleveland? The report suggests that it was indeed UAL 93. Is this a coincidence that the
report correlates with the ACARS messages data regarding the Radio Ground Stations
which located contact with UAL 93 near to Chicago?
The UAL 93 confusion with Delta 1989
Theory
Many
people say UAL 93 was confused with Delta 1989. The Associated Press and two
Ohio newspapers report a landing at 10:45 a.m. However, Delta Airlines registered
its landing time at 10:10 a.m. Cleveland firefighters also can confirm that the
landing took place before 10:30 a.m. Because Delta Airlines did not lose track
of its airplane. The 10:10 a.m. plane was surely Delta 1989. So the 10:45 a.m.
plane is by definition – United Airlines 93. To further support this evidence,
a report by USA Today said: "Flight Quarantined" - On a remote
taxiway at Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland – Delta Flight 1989 is
quarantined. Since early reports that a bomb, then hijackers, might be aboard,
Delta CEO Leo Mullin, 58, had nervously tracked the flight from the company’s
headquarters in Atlanta. Every five minutes, a new report came in. None seemed
clear. Still, the flight landed uneventfully in Cleveland at 10:10 a.m. [USA
Today, 8/12/02].
Summary
& Conclusion:
As
I have outlined using the official evidence, data along with some mainstream media sources, there are major
discrepancies regarding UAL 93's official wheels-off time at 8:42 a.m., which is
in direct conflict with the official BTS data, which indicates UAL 93’s
wheels-off time was at 8:28 a.m., not 8:42 a.m. We also have official ACARS
data suggesting that UAL 93 was near Champaign, IL, after UAL 93 had allegedly
crashed at 10:03 a.m., and also Air Traffic Control (ATC) communications revealing
that UAL 93’s last known coordinate was 3951N 07846W, locating UAL 93
fifteen miles past the official crash site after the alleged crash, which was
obtained via transponder data which was active at 10:05 a.m., two minutes after
the official crash time at 10:03 a.m. Champaign, IL, is nowhere near UAL 93’s last
known coordinate (15 miles past the official crash site).
Based
on this official evidence and data conflicts, FAA and United Airlines had to be
tracking two different airplanes. This is supported by Anthony F. Mazza’s
account, the fueler for Ogden Aviation Services at Newark International Airport
who encountered a different pilot on UAL 93, who was not Leroy Homer, Jr nor
Jason Dahl, who were officially named as the two pilots of UAL 93. Moreover,
the official narrative states the passengers of UAL 93 boarded the airplane
from boarding Gate 17 of Terminal A at Newark Liberty International Airport on
9/11, however passengers were observed boarding UAL 93 from the tarmac, which
could suggest those passengers were boarding a different UAL 93 airplane,
especially taking into account Anthony F. Mazza's account seeing a different co-pilot
of UAL 93.
Additionally,
the evidence also indicates UAL 93 filed two additional new flight plans. The
first one was Hagerstown (HGR) and the second one was Reagan National Airport
(DCA). Corroborating evidence demonstrates that UAL 93 was heading towards
Washington, DC, to make a landing at Reagan National Airport. The official ACARS
and ATC data shows UAL 93 still airborne after the “alleged” crash time. It has been
suggested that the airplanes were inserted blips, however due to the ACARS
messages being received by the airplane near Champaign, IL, this proves it was
not an inserted radar blip. Moreover, it is questionable whether or not the airplane located via ATC
coordinates an was an inserted radar blip because a VFR had a visual sighting on UAL 93, which
was travelling at 8,000 feet, and 11 miles south of Indian Head, PA, which is
just north of Cumberland, Maryland, thus demonstrating a airplane was
observed by the VFR, thus proving two different UAL 93's were in the air.
The
evidence presented here in this analysis demonstrates that an airplane
identifying itself as UAL 93 landed at Reagan National Airport at
10:28 a.m., while a duplicate airplane was identified as UAL
93 was near Champaign, IL, which possibly landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport
at 10:45 a.m., which was reported on the morning of 9/11, by Cleveland
Mayor, Michael R. White. It was also reported via a Cincinnati television
station, saying “Flight 93 had landed at
Cleveland International Airport”. Although was later retracted by Liz Forman.
In
conclusion, the “official” telemetry data itself strongly indicates that duplicate planes identifying as United Airlines "Flight 93" were in the air on 9/11, and did not crash at the named crash site in Shanksville, PA at 10:03 a.m.
American Airlines ‘Flight 77’ - The Official Narrative American
Airlines Flight 77 was a scheduled American Airlines domestic transcontinental
passenger flight from Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles,
Virginia, to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. The
Boeing 757-223 aircraft serving the flight was hijacked by five Saudi men
affiliated with al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001, as part of the September 11
attacks. They deliberately crashed the plane into the Pentagon in Arlington
County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. killing all 64 people on board,
including the five hijackers and six crew. Less than 35 minutes into the
flight, the hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers, crew, and
pilots to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was
trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers
aboard made telephone calls to friends and family and relayed information on
the hijacking. The hijackers crashed the aircraft into the western side of the
Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. Source: [9/11 Commission Report].
AAL
77 departure gate data conflicts with the official narrative News
media sources reported within days of 11th September, 2001 that AAL
77 took off ten minutes late but none of the media named from which gate AAL 77
left from. It wasn’t until an official Staff Report dated August 26, 2004
identified the gate as "Gate D26". The official narrative claims that AAL 77
departed Washington Dulles International Airport at approximately 08:20 a.m.
from Terminal D Gate 26. Flight recorder positional data provided by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reveals a different story. ‘Pilots
For 9/11 Truth’ conducted analysis of the aircraft flight positional data which
I have included here below.
An illustration of Dulles International Airport Concourse D and their
respective gates. It shows gate D26 on the southwest corner of the terminal.
Below
is the raw latitude/longitude plot based on the information as seen in the raw
Flight Data Recorder file provided by the NTSB. As you can see there is an
offset from the runway during departure. This is due to navigational errors
associated with the device involved, called an Inertial Navigation System
(INS).
The
colour coding is recognized as:
Green P9-P0 is night
before engine off
Red M1 is the engine
start after pushback
Yellow M2 is forward
movement into a turn for start of taxi
Red M3 is Radio Alt 3
Feet, 1st indication of lift off
After
adjusting the Latitude/Longitude offset based on drift prone to the
navigational equipment utilised, the positional data has the aircraft departing
a gate further east of gate D26, and on the north-side of the concourse. See
overlay below:
Image
below, is zoomed in for closer inspection
In
the two pictures above it indicates that the airplane backed out of the
north-side gate D19 or D21. This is because the red M1 is parked, and the
Yellow M2 is pushed back from the gate, and the airplane pushed south out of
the gate, towards the bottom of picture and judging by the length of taxi west,
you are dead on for the left turn onto the other taxiway. This indicates the
airplane had to have been pushed back from the south side of the terminal
around gate D19 or D21, definitely not from gate D26. The IRS' use laser ring
gyros are very accurate, although do have a small allowance for drift rate, and
if they exceed that then they fault. See this short detailed video extract
presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth – (SKYGATE 911) covering the relevant
information above: https://youtu.be/nu2CRKFpo4M
What
about the passengers? New evidence of two photographs which surfaced in a documentary film
made about the Pentagon Attack in 2011 show passengers at gate D26. https://youtu.be/KGJSZN4apvs?t=331
Taking into account the airplane positional data
discrepancy which indicates that AAL 77 did not depart from gate D26, and was
most likely gate D19 or D21, it presents further conflicts as it appears some passengers did appear to board at gate D26. See below:
There has been no official cctv or photographical evidence released of any of the passengers boarding their flights on 9/11. This photograph demonstrates that some of the passengers were at gate D26 at Dulles Airport. I have analysed some other photographs taken at Dulles Airport's gate D26, in an attempt to identify and confirm that the passengers were at the correct gate D26. See below:
In the second photograph below, it shows the school
children and their teachers along with two National Geographic representatives. The school children in the photograph won a National Geographic competition and were on a trip organised by National Geographic as the prize. This
photograph was also shown in the Pentagon documentary, however I managed to
track down a better quality version of it at a website. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/lastimages/comments/g3x9y5/a_group_of_6th_graders_their_teachers_and_two/
So assuming the photographs are authentic (I have no
reason to believe they aren’t) and checking Dulles International Airport
pictures of both old and new pictures of gate D26 boarding area, the
photographs do to some degree provide evidence of some of the passengers named
boarding AAL 77 appearing in the photographs. Whether they were boarding AAL 77
is now in question, taking into account the airplane positional data discrepancy
which 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' highlighted, demonstrating that AAL 77 was stationed at a different gate (D19 or D21), not gate D26.
Also captured on CCTV at the checking-in area at
Dulles Airport on 9/11 was Mari-Rae Sopper. She was captured with her cat
passing through the check-in area and also heading onto the concourse to
make her way to gate D26 where AAL 77 allegedly departed from.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS) Discrepancies An
astonishing discovery made by the late Australian blues guitarist Gerard
Holmgren (and confirmed by others) which he published on 13th
November 2003, found that according to the original Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), showed that AAL 11 and AAL 77 were not listed in the flight log statistics for September 11th. Moreover when they were later logged in the BTS listings it showed neither AAL 11 nor AAL 77 could not have taken off. Furthermore, they did not have an aircraft number assigned
to either of them. https://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren_interview.htm
Below:
AAL 77’s details logged in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
records.
According
to the BTS database entry, it lists no wheels-off time for AAL 77 for that day.
In the official record, the NTSB say the data was not reported, in the
confusion of the day. Some researchers made the assumption, that it proved AAL
77 never existed, but does the data indicate that assumption? If we take the
data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, misreported, or
falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that AAL 77 existed, however
it never took off. The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and
electronically, the fact that the entry exists shows that AAL 77 was scheduled.
The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never
moved. The BTS data is in direct conflict with positional data of the airplane
released by NTSB, which shows that the airplane did move, and taxied towards
the runway for take-off.Additionally,
there is another discrepancy indicating that the airplane was positioned at
Gate D19 or D21 not Gate D26 which was reported in the official Staff Report,
released August 2004.
Like the other three flights, there is conflicts in the official data, which do
not conclusively support the official narrative.
Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) discrepancies According to the official ACARS data contained in the PDF document - 5 AWA 898
Printout
At
11:49:18 a.m. (7:49:18 a.m. EST) and 12:09:01 p.m. (8:09:01 a.m. EST) American
Airlines Flight 77's ACARS (Uplink and Downlink) messages sent to and from the
airplane indicates a discrepancy in the identity of the flight number. The
flight number is identified as: AA0000 at 8:09:01 a.m. EST. This should not be
the case. Also note, there is a noticeable 20 minute gap in the ACARS data
communications before AAL 77 officially was scheduled to take-off at 8:10 a.m.
EST, even though it is alleged AA77 took off late at 8:20 a.m. EST, according
to the NTSB Report February 2002. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
The anomalous flight number AA0000 is non-existent, yet still lists the correct
tail number. In the other instances in the ACARS data, it does show the correct
flight number AA0077 and correct tail number N644AA. Why is there a 20 minute
gap missing in the ACARS data at the time AAL 77 was scheduled to take off?
According Air Traffic Control recordings/transcripts we are led to believe an
airplane (AAL 77) took off. So again, there’s a pattern of conflicting official
data with flights all the flights on 9/11 (AAL 11, UAL 175 and UAL 93) and AAL
77 is no exception.
The
ACARS data infers that at 11:49 a.m. an UPBLK was sent to an airplane with the
tail number N644AA with reference to a flight number AAL 77, yet by 12:09 p.m.
at the time of the scheduled take off AAL 77, the same airplane with tail
number N644AA displays a non-existent flight number AA0000. It is compelling
because there is no ACARS contact made for 20 minutes with the airplane, and
the fact a downlink message (DLMSG) was sent from the airplane displaying a
non-existent flight number. Does this suggest either the airplane didn’t take
off, or a different airplane took instead?
According
to the BTS data-base evidence it does suggest that AAL 77 didn’t take off,
perhaps suggesting the ACARS data indicates a different airplane took off
instead. Moreover, does this also support Pilots For 9/11 Truth’s analysis
regarding the flight recorder positional data evidence, which reveals the
possibility that AAL 77 was not at Gate D26, but at Gate D19 or D21
instead?
Additionally,
after studying the complete ACARS data, it reveals no attempts were made to
reach AAL 77 through ACARS after 9:05 a.m. The last ACARS was sent at 9:05 a.m.
EDT (13:05 UTC). https://www.scribd.com/doc/76015964/5-AWA-898-Printout-of-ARINC-Messages
(See Page. 199). The following uplink was sent at 10:00 a.m. EDT, almost 25
minutes after a communication gap after the crash had occurred. There are no
other ULMSG hits between 9:05 a.m. EDT and 9:38 a.m. EDT, only pairs of
ULBLK/DLBLK messages. This is surprising, taking into account that American
Airlines already had an airplane crashed before 9:00 a.m. and AAL 77 had lost
contact at 8:51 a.m. and then at 8:56 a.m. when the transponder is turned off. http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353825/T8-B15-...nts-of-Interest.
It is alleged,
the blip of AAL 77 vanished from the radar screens of Indianapolis Center, and the
Air Traffic Control facility responsible for AAL 77, and at the same time radio
communication was lost. The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that AAL 77 was
completely lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. On page 8-9 they write:
At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last
routine radio communication. ... At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its
assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned
off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis
Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft.
American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success. https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
The controllers thought it had crashed and submitted their assessment to other
ATC centers, FAA headquarters and American Airlines. This caused the top
American Airlines management to believe that AAL 77 crashed into the South
Tower – which they believed until the Pentagon strike. There were also rumours
circulating that an airplane crashed near the Ohio-Kentucky border (as
confirmed in Richard Clarke's "Against all enemies"), which is
exactly the area where AAL 77 vanished, which is depicted in the Flight
Explorer animation. See below:
Controllers
activated primary radar as soon as they lost AAL 77, but this measure was
"allegedly" unsuccessful. AAL 77 was not detected by any controllers until it was picked up
at 9:32 a.m. by Dulles TRACON controllers. (The only man who “allegedly” knew
its position at 9:25 a.m. was Norman Mineta).
This
circumstance is even more unbelievable if we believe Air Traffic Controller - Robinson, who states that
AAL 77 had been isolated on an appropriate desk. So they isolated a flight
considered "at risk" and then they sent no ACARS uplinks to ask for
acknowledgement from the crew? Even if American Airlines had suspected it had crashed, but
since they had no confirmation yet, it is amazing that no ACARS uplinks had been sent
during nearly an hour. Again, a comparison with AAL 11 and UAL 93 helps
understand how strange this behaviour is. Also, there had been no rejected
messages from AAL 77 before 9:05 a.m. so we would expect that American Airlines
would send a series of ACARS uplink messages desperately trying to make a contact
with the cockpit, however this wasn’t the case. If
we look at the communication before 9:05 a.m. we see that American Airlines
sent ACARS uplink messages on a regular basis, and what makes it even more amazing is
the fact that they had not tried to do same after 9:05 a.m. when the airplane
had been lost from radar and a hijack or a crash was suspected.
In a Freedom of Information request made to the FAA in 2007, the
FAA made available data in their response on September 12, 2008. https://www.thepentacon.com/FAAcover.pdf
In
the batch of data files released by FAA it included the following radar tracking data
for each of the 4 airplane flights.
1 DCC 1739 Radar
Track Data AAL77 Radar Track.pdf
2 DCC 1738 Radar
Track Data UAL93 Radar Track.pdf
3 DCC 1740 Radar
Track Data AAL11 Radar Track.pdf
4 DCC 1737 Radar
Track Data UAL175 Radar Track.pdf
The anomaly revealed AAL 77 did not make a U-turn
near the border of Kentucky and Ohio to head back to Washington, D.C. as
asserted in the official narrative. Moreover, it continued over Indianapolis
Center instead, where AAL 77 continues in flight over Missouri.
In the ATC transcripts, at 10:31 a.m. (14:31 UTC)
there is a reference made about tracking AAL 77 over Missouri. This again contradicts the notion that the airplane blip was not picked up on radar.
If
they were tracking AAL 77 over Missouri as suggested in the ATC conversation,
then this suggests they would have had a primary radar return on the target,
which contradicts the claim in the official narrative that they did not.
Essentially, the ATC must have been tracking the target because they had knowledge
of the target they were tracking over Missouri, which they took to be AAL 77.
The official data in the FOIA request suggests AAL 77 was not flying towards
Washington D.C. neither was it the airplane heading towards the Pentagon. Moreover,
there’s no evidence of an Emergency
Transmitter Locator (ELT) being activated and transmitted when the alleged airplane
crashed into the Pentagon.
A coincidence, or possible airplane
swap? America
West Airlines was the last airplane to land at Ronald Reagan National (DCI)
across from the Pentagon on 9/11/01. The tail number was N644AW which is very similar toAAL 77's tail number, which was N644AA. See
below:
Detailed
Statistics
Arrivals
Airport: Washington DC - Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA)
Airline: America West Airlines (HP)
Month(s): September
Day(s): 11
Year(s): 2001
NOTE: A complete listing of airline and airport abbreviations is available.
Times are reported in local time using a 24 hour clock.
Carrier Code Date (MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Origin Airport Actual
Departure Time Wheels-on Time
HP
9/11/2001 98 N644AW CMH 9:39 9:35
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
The
departure time from CHM (Port Columbus International), Ohio is 8:28 a.m. and
the arrival time at Reagan National Airport (DCA) is 9:39 a.m. The scheduled
elapsed time is 65 minutes. There are two airplanes listed departing from CHM
on 9/11 with the same tail number N644AW. The second one (the same airplane)
was scheduled departure time of 13:59 p.m. The owner of the airplane is
Wilmington Trust Company Trustee, the same owner as AAL 77. I have determined
that an American West Airlines A320 airplane landed at Reagan at 9:39 a.m. with
the tail number: N644AW. (AAL 77’s tail number is: N644AA).
America
West Flight 0098:
Tail Number: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
AAL
77’s transponder signal was switched off in the location of the Ohio-Kentucky
boarder at 8:56 a.m. The alleged impact time was 9:37 a.m. into the Pentagon
building, which is situated next to Reagan National Airport.
It's
very interesting that both airplanes have a near-identical tail number, and are
owned by the same company. Is it a coincidence that BOTH airplanes are near the
Pentagon at almost EXACTLY the same time, and AAL 77’s transponder code was
lost over Ohio and the American West Airlines airplane took off from CHM, Ohio
at 8:40 a.m. just 16 minutes before AAL 77 transponder is switched off.http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=4371&st=30
Considering the airplane which landed at Reagan
National Airport at 9:39 a.m. had the tail number: N644AW, does this data
suggest the possibility of an airplane swap around the Ohio, Kentucky boarder? It
is plausible, especially when considering at 9:35 a.m. two downlink ACARS
messages were sent from “allegedly” AAL 77 to Baltimore and Washington Dulles
Radio Ground Stations (RGS), when AAL 77 was flying past Missouri, which is in the
opposite direction and nowhere near Baltimore or Washington Dulles Radio Ground
Stations. Ostensibly the American West Airlines flight tail number: N644AW
would have been near those RGS locations. Note, no more ACARS messages
are visible to read until the last one which was an uplink at 10:00 a.m. to the
airplane. This is revealing because even though it says the ACARS uplink
message was not delivered, the question remains why would an ACARS message be
sent to an airplane that had already crashed twenty three minutes earlier?
Perhaps if they were tracking AAL 77, and it was still flying towards
Missouri,
that might explain why an ACARS message was sent, in the belief that AAL
77 was
still airborne. Also, if the airplane was swapped with American West
Airlines,
then this could also explain why controllers may have thought AAL 77 had
landed
at Reagan National Airport safely, which is why an ACARS message was
sent.
Either way, it is indicated and reflected in the Air Traffic Control
transcripts that controllers were unsure whether AAL 77 had crashed. Even
the Secret Service didn't believe it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon building, which is also reflected in the ATC transcripts at 11:17 a.m.
See below:
Moreover, there is no evidence of an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) being activated or transmitted at the time of the crash, which should have happened.
Emergency transmitters are
carried aboard most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. In the event of an
aircraft accident, these devices are designed to transmit a distress signal on
121.5 and 243.0 MHz frequencies. ELTs are mounted in the airplane, and designed
to be triggered upon impact or may be manually activated using the remote
switch and control panel indicator in the cockpit. Activation of the ELT
triggers an audio alert, and 406-MHz ELTs transmit GPS position for search and
rescue. [Emergency Locator Transmitters – AOPA].